Do you think that Samsung will come up with AMOLED screen Laptop before Apple comes up with Retina Display Laptop? Both companies started with phones with high resolution and both them then made tablets (Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 with Super AMOLED Plus display and 196 ppi pixel density and The New iPad with Retina display and 264 ppi pixel density).

Do you think that Samsung will come up with AMOLED screen Laptop before Apple comes up with Retina Display Laptop? Both companies started with phones with high resolution and both them then made tablets (Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 with Super AMOLED Plus display and 196 ppi pixel density and The New iPad with Retina display and 264 ppi pixel density).

If you know anything about displays, you'd know that AMOLED is an oversaturated, degradable screen that is near-impossible to calibrate and, without a matte display, creates massive amounts of glare. Expect any monitor made with current AMOLED technologies to cause extreme eye strain and last only ~2 years.

If you know anything about displays, you'd know that AMOLED is an oversaturated, degradable screen that is near-impossible to calibrate and, without a matte display, creates massive amounts of glare. Expect any monitor made with current AMOLED technologies to cause extreme eye strain and last only ~2 years.

The AMOLED hype in the mobile industry never made sense to me...

(as you can tell I hate AMOLED screens)

Actually you can see a Super AMOLED Plus display outdoors much better than the Retina Display!; I think it's quite promising technology considering the black levels, the energy efficiency etc. Samsung Galaxy S (the first phone with Super AMOLED screen) has been around for exactly 2 years now and I haven't heard any complains regarding the display. About the Apple logo, I really don't care wether it glows or not, especially if the screen has double the number of pixels and it's more energy efficient.

Actually you can see a Super AMOLED Plus display outdoors much better than the Retina Display!; I think it's quite promising technology considering the black levels, the energy efficiency etc. Samsung Galaxy S (the first phone with Super AMOLED screen) has been around for exactly 2 years now and I haven't heard any complains regarding the display. About the Apple logo, I really don't care wether it glows or not, especially if the screen has double the number of pixels and it's more energy efficient.

The glare is not as visible on a mobile phone because the screen is tiny. I can't see any glare on the iPhone 4/4S because ti's small. Increase the size and you get a big, flat mirror with so much contrast that the blacks are more reflective than black.
Also, to make the display brighter for use on computers, more power will need to be pumped into the display, defeating the purpose of an energy-efficient display and vastly shortening the lifespan.

I know many people who have the blue subpixels die on the Galaxy S.

Case and point: no matter how one looks at it, AMOLED is impractical for use in anything bigger than the size of your hand.

The glare is not as visible on a mobile phone because the screen is tiny. I can't see any glare on the iPhone 4/4S because ti's small. Increase the size and you get a big, flat mirror with so much contrast that the blacks are more reflective than black.
Also, to make the display brighter for use on computers, more power will need to be pumped into the display, defeating the purpose of an energy-efficient display and vastly shortening the lifespan.

I know many people who have the blue subpixels die on the Galaxy S.

Case and point: no matter how one looks at it, AMOLED is impractical for use in anything bigger than the size of your hand.

When do you think we'll see the first MBP/MBA with Retina Display? My bet is for 2013.

When do you think we'll see the first MBP/MBA with Retina Display? My bet is for 2013.

1. When the web supports it
2. When such a display is power-efficient enough
3. When such a display can achieve high-gamut coverage of the Adobe RGB spectrum
4. When such a display is cheap enough
5. When graphics cards can handle the high resolutions

The glare is not as visible on a mobile phone because the screen is tiny. I can't see any glare on the iPhone 4/4S because ti's small. Increase the size and you get a big, flat mirror with so much contrast that the blacks are more reflective than black.
Also, to make the display brighter for use on computers, more power will need to be pumped into the display, defeating the purpose of an energy-efficient display and vastly shortening the lifespan.

I know many people who have the blue subpixels die on the Galaxy S.

Case and point: no matter how one looks at it, AMOLED is impractical for use in anything bigger than the size of your hand.

They should just trash all the OLED tv's and take off the false advertising of being more energy efficient. Long live LCD's!

They should just trash all the OLED tv's and take off the false advertising of being more energy efficient. Long live thicker more power consuming horrible viewing angle TV's!

Hmm, I caught that ninja edit.
First, the horrible viewing angles are due to display makers reserving IPS to high-end devices only. Blame them, not the technology.
Second, 1080p at HDTV sizes is so low density that it's actually easier to make than high-density 4" screens. As a consequence HDTVs are more power efficient than LCDs at that scale, but not at a 15" form factor.
Third, OLED TVs fade just like plasma TVs. Again, expect blue subpixels to fail in a couple years.

You see OLED phone screens, TVs and even tablets but you never see an OLED monitor. Why? It's impractical.

They should just trash all the OLED tv's and take off the false advertising of being more energy efficient. Long live LCD's!

They have pretty much started giving the things away in the UK...the technology just isn't there yet...I've seen these screens in action, and the colours are appaling, over saturated, and just plain wrong.

Which display looks better is everyone here gonna go with retina? I think the amoled screen colours do look awesome but thats due to the saturation I was pretty let down overall when I seen the samsung galaxy 7.7 I just thought the colours should "pop" more as people were saying but I was generally unimpressed maybe I was expecting too much.
The new retina display is pretty nice tho and I feel the colours are pretty close to the amoled screen but I feel kinda weird when I can say to people I can tell the difference between the ipad 2 and whatever the new ones called and they look at me as if I have 2 heads.

It isn't even a case of which display is better or whatever, the AMOLED is worse, merely by fact. It is hugely oversaturated and does struggle in pretty much every way when it comes to colour reproduction.

You see OLED phone screens, TVs and even tablets but you never see an OLED monitor. Why? It's impractical.

To be fair you also don't see Retina Monitors! As for the AMOLED technology again great potential, hopefully some day they will overcome the issues. I'm pretty sure that Samsung will come up with AMOLED screen laptop some time next year, while Apple at least one year after that.

To be fair you also don't see Retina Monitors! As for the AMOLED technology again great potential, hopefully some day they will overcome the issues. I'm pretty sure that Samsung will come up with AMOLED screen laptop some time next year, while Apple at least one year after that.

Again, monitor companies only use what's practical.
Retina display is impractical as of now, for the reasons I stated above.

OLED screens are the future. They can be calibrated to be more accurate. The current application for OLED screens is on phones and game systems where super high saturation wows consumers and sells product. Even last generation OLED screens are rated for a life of over 5 years of normal usage. Last gen OLED screens have a half brightness life of 15000 hours, which is 2 years of 100% use. 8 hours a day, 5 years. They still work after that... just not as bright. The next gen stuff should be up to 60000 hours.

OLED doesn't have to be on a glass substrate, there is no reason why it couldn't be matte.

OLED is unmatching in black level, contrast, color gamut, brightness... There have been some issues, but nothing that won't be worked out

Why hate on a product before it's release? oh yeah, because it's not apple's.

You will see OLED monitors, laptops and TV's by Christmas 2012. By Christmas 2014 everything else will seem like ****.

Do you think that Samsung will come up with AMOLED screen Laptop before Apple comes up with Retina Display Laptop? Both companies started with phones with high resolution and both them then made tablets (Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 with Super AMOLED Plus display and 196 ppi pixel density and The New iPad with Retina display and 264 ppi pixel density).

To use an old saying, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.

AMOLED is a screen technology. Retina means the the display is a certain dpi based on the viewing distance.

AMOLED is a technological implementation. Retina is a specification. There is nothing preventing an AMOLED based display also being classified as a Retina display if it meets the necessary Retina specifications.

OLED screens are the future. They can be calibrated to be more accurate. The current application for OLED screens is on phones and game systems where super high saturation wows consumers and sells product. Even last generation OLED screens are rated for a life of over 5 years of normal usage. Last gen OLED screens have a half brightness life of 15000 hours, which is 2 years of 100% use. 8 hours a day, 5 years. They still work after that... just not as bright. The next gen stuff should be up to 60000 hours.

OLED doesn't have to be on a glass substrate, there is no reason why it couldn't be matte.

OLED is unmatching in black level, contrast, color gamut, brightness... There have been some issues, but nothing that won't be worked out

Why hate on a product before it's release? oh yeah, because it's not apple's.

You will see OLED monitors, laptops and TV's by Christmas 2012. By Christmas 2014 everything else will seem like ****.

Sorry, you are the only fanboy here. Don't delude yourself.

The extreme differences in contrast created by OLED causes EYE STRAIN.

OLEDs fade away after less tha 5 years of usage. My old LCD monitor from 2001 has not experienced a decrease in brightness.

OLEDs are super saturated on phones because they are naturally super saturated. It's not to appeal to customers (it shies away many, actually), but rather because OLEDs have a high threshold electricity to create light. It's almost like the OLED is either on or off; there's not really an in-between state. When it's off, it's pitch black, and when it's on, it's really bright, but when you try to control it, it's very difficult.

Retina displays on laptops is sacrificing precious gamut for resolution. It's just as impractical as OLEDs.

The conventional LCD panels are mere to stay for at least 5 more years, Mr. Fanboy.

They have pretty much started giving the things away in the UK...the technology just isn't there yet...I've seen these screens in action, and the colours are appaling, over saturated, and just plain wrong.

There is only one oled tv that you can buy - the 11" Sony oled and it was sold in Japan only. Are you sure you're talking about the same thing?

Oh yay! So you must have one of the rare LED backlit prototypes which were produced back then..

(CCFL's brightness is going down after some years)

No, I had a CCFL monitor whose backlight could be replaced.
To replace the backlight for an OLED, you have to replace the entire screen.
Of course if you have the modern LED-backlit LCD screen, it doesn't fade at all.

It isn't even a case of which display is better or whatever, the AMOLED is worse, merely by fact. It is hugely oversaturated and does struggle in pretty much every way when it comes to colour reproduction.

The only advantage that AMOLED really has is low power consumption.

I take it you haven't seen the OLED TVs at this year's CES? OLED is worse? Over-saturated? Struggles with colour reproduction? Seriously?

Quote:

Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) displays have been tantalizing consumers and manufacturers since the early 2000s (though they were originally invented by Kodak in 1979!) OLED screens require no backlight and are therefore thinner, lighter, and capable of superior color reproduction compared to LCDs. OLED displays typically draw 25-40 percent less power than their LCD counterparts (this varies depending on the amount of white light on screen), offer excellent viewing angles, and have a much faster refresh rate. The technology can be used to create flexible displays (try that with your 27″ LCD) and to produce high-efficiency, ultra-thin lighting panels.

the bad

Quote:

The problems that have kept OLED tech out of mainstream panels to date, such as short diode lifespans (particularly a problem for blue OLEDs), high manufacturing costs, and the potential for screen burn-in continue to stymie attempts to increase panel sizes.

Product positioning is also more difficult. The difference in image quality between HDTV and standard-definition was immediately obvious to everyone the first time they saw it. OLEDs do offer a number of fidelity improvements compared to current technology, but they’re not typically as jaw-dropping as the gap between a standard definition TV and even a 720p screen.

I take it you haven't seen the OLED TVs at this year's CES? OLED is worse? Over-saturated? Struggles with colour reproduction? Seriously?

Yes, they are oversaturated to me.
Especially the yellows and reds. Not the blues though, I think they managed to control the blues due to the inherently short life of blue OLEDs.
Grays are still bad though.

Yes, they are oversaturated to me.
Especially the yellows and reds. Not the blues though, I think they managed to control the blues due to the inherently short life of blue OLEDs.
Grays are still bad though.